High Cost Punditry

What kind of government were the founders trying to achieve?

By
25

Is America a republic or a democracy? Jonah has forced many recent Remnant guests to answer this question, but only Jay Cost—a historian and senior fellow at AEI—has written a whole book on the subject. It’s called (creatively enough) Democracy or Republic? The People and the Constitution, and Jay joins the show today to flesh out its thesis. In an era of declining civic virtue and institutional trust, are the tools of government that the Founders developed strong enough to deal with today’s challenges? What are the pros and cons of the democratic process? And how can we help restore an understanding of the Constitution among America’s youth?

Show Notes:

–Jay’s page at AEI

–Jay’s new book, Democracy or Republic? The People and the Constitution

–Jay’s previous Remnant appearance

–The Remnant with Jim Pethokoukis

–Irving Kristol: “The American Revolution as a Successful Revolution”

By
Comments (25)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Jason Godwin

    Three points:
    1. I am in the Expand the House Club for sure. I think the best proposal is to let it float based on the population of the least populous state. That would avoid the problem of picking an arbitrary number like 1,000 or the House perpetually expanding as the population grows. A state's Congressional representation could be determined by basically dividing a state's population by the population of the least populous state and rounding to the nearest whole number. For example: Texas / Wyoming =~ 51 (and thus 53 electoral votes). If you did this today, it would work out to about 580 members in the House (if you get an even number, add one and give it to the state with the largest people/representative ratio to ensure an odd number in the House and electoral college).

    2. One way you could make parties stronger would be to use multi-member proportional representation, which is basically the system Germany uses. In each election, you cast two votes: one for the representative for your local constituency (who do you want to represent Texas's 12th Congressional District) and one for which party you would like to see in the majority. The second vote is then used to proportionally balance the House so you don't end up in a situation where Democrats win 52% of the popular vote and 61% of seats (or whatever). How does this strengthen parties? The proportionality seats are chosen from party lists where the party bosses can promote or demote members who toe the party line (or are problem children). In such cases, you could demote people like Lauren Boebert and Matt Gaetz to the bottom of the list while keeping members like Steve Scalise and Dan Crenshaw towards the top.

    3. Next time someone bashes the electoral college as being undemocratic, here's an interesting fact. Of the 10 highest scoring countries in the Economist's Democracy Index, none elect their head of government directly. The closest is Taiwan which does have a directly elected President whose power is slightly more than ceremonial. Of the other nine, eight use a parliamentary system and the other one (Switzerland) doesn't even have a singular head of government (Switzerland's head of government is a 7-member executive council elected by a joint sitting of their parliament wherein the president of said council is a "first amongst equals" only). Further, of countries considered a "full democracy", only 5 of 24 directly elect a more than ceremonial head of government (Uruguay, Costa Rica, Chile, France, and South Korea -- and the latter three are debatable as full democracies).

    Collapse
  2. Twbennet

    On expanding the House of Representatives: Perhaps someone could sell a preserve-your-district bill. After each new census, no state would lose a seat, but new seats would be added in other states to maintain balance. Nothing like appealing to self-interest. It would only give small and slow increase, but something. And maybe getting everyone used to the idea that the House can grow would be of value.

    Collapse
  3. Sam19952005

    I enjoyed this podcast and will listen again to drive some of this ideas and stories into my memory. I always love these shows. Thanks.

    Collapse
  4. Russell J

    Good discussion. I have long been a Madison fan and became a Hamilton fan after reading his biography. I’m not sure it is fair to quickly assume he was smarter than Hamilton. Hamilton was an advocate for a stronger government but within a very different context where a weak government was not doing well and a new one took its place. Hamilton doesn’t get enough credit for his contributions. They were both good at politics and very impressive figures. Madison had his tribal faults. Tiny gripe from a Hamilton defender.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Toog

    I’ve heard this argument about the Electoral College enabling a demagogue like Trump a few times. Frankly, it seems like hindsight bias.

    Yes, it so happens that Trump has a little short of majority support nationally, but (at least in 2016) peculiar efficiency in the EC. But that’s more or less a coincidence. Another demagogue might have less than majority support in most of the country, but massive majorities in a few areas (this has been a common pattern for revolutionaries in some other countries). In that case, the Electoral College would protect against the demagogue.

    There are plenty of arguments for various EC reforms on their merits. The Trump example just doesn’t seem like a special vulnerability of the system, beyond the broad complaint that presidential elections should be more majoritarian as a matter of general principle (the same old Bush / Gore issue).

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Tiffw

    The Electoral College would still avoid regular winners that the majority of the population is opposed to if we uncapped the house. The Electoral College doesn't work the way it was planned

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Charley Warns

    "Entitlements are the opposite of gratitude." That's such a great point!

    This podcast is a great listen from start to finish! It's an informative chat featuring two voices of reason. I love this sarcastic point made at the 1 hour 19 minute mark: "Any win is a collaboration with the enemy and therefore contemptible." Jonah is pointing out how this dysfunctional type of thinking has become the norm. This a podcast that will be worth listening to a few times.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    Jay’s impassioned defense of the Constitution and exhortation to gratitude at the end was very inspiring. Too many Americans fail to recognize the achievement of our political system. They measure it against the best they imagine, rather than the standard of human history. The point about Europe was great! People love to compare us to Europe but 80 years is a short time in human history and what happened before that? It’s like when Europeans talk about how strangely violent Americans are. It takes one to know one and people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Charley Warns

      Yes, Jay's awesome!

      Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Rev Snow

    Great conversation, but it is striking to me that in a conversation about democracies and republics and American constitutional principles the topic of liberty was almost entirely absent.

    Collapse
    1. Deleted Comment

      This comment has been deleted

  10. Avatar photo
    Kyzyl Tuva

    Great podcast. Before I drink hemlock though, I’d like to propose a possible solution to our current situation. Get rid of employer based income tax withholding. It builds a barrier between the citizen and the state. If people had to pay taxes directly to their state and Federal governments they might start to question what they are paying for. Then there would be more skin in the game and change might start happening from the electorate.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      C C Writer

      Untie health insurance from employment too.

      Collapse
Load More